tv [untitled] September 13, 2013 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT
down every hour for no less than 10 minutes. miss reyes is the inspector working relating to this permit. sasha was nearly following the instructions to wait for mr. reyas. miss reyes was on long-term leave and sasha followed up several times. i urge the board to keep in mind the language of this public code is permissive and not mandatory. miss lewis has done everything to comply with the code. while awaiting annen expectation -- inspection by
the department of health. the third order why the reason should be reversed. the board granted miss lewis the ability to run a business. this coffee is ethnically unique and organically grown. sasha's tea is from a tea from from a red bush. sasha herself is ethnically diverse and a woman operating a full proprietorship. her ability to run a business should be applauded. not stopped. the district has bent over backwards to stop her from operating her sole proprietorship. when it didn't go their way, fisher man's
ordered a mandate. this cow's -- cost the city of san francisco more than $5,000. the permit was rightfully issued because her rights were given to her and miss lewis respectfully ask this board to allow her the right to make an honest living. thank you. >> counselor, your chronology in your brief, the health department when they make an assignment to a specific inspector, that inspector long-term leave, there is no back up? >> i don't know how they operate. it was my understanding. >> perhaps miss lewis would like to answer. >> need to speak to the other mic. >> thank you. i can answer
that. it was during november and december. the city shut down. they were very limited inspectors and limited group and no one wanted to do the permit other than for melinda. the one 1 person that was there was the one that told me he wasn't an inspector. he was one filling in during the holidays. melinda wasn't there until march. he told me not to operate because i wasn't in their system. >> i have a question for miss dell. i'm more concerned about the corporation's issues. the corporations code. do you have any documentation that this is in fact the sole proprietorship? >> i have a document that the if fictitious name.
>> good evening commissioners. john from public works. at this point the department still not certain as to what from the brief of the appellant specifically what the intent is that is seeking to over turn the department's position. what i read from the brief was this suggesting that for whatever reason the fisherman. wharf had issues with them and it's very specific and narrow in the statement that miss lewis was not operating for 6 months or more and under the code one of the requirements is for us to suspend or revoke the permit. the second one related to compliance issue as it relates in this case to the health department. the department of
public works was not informed between the action of miss lewis and the department until the time of the directors hearing. we were never approached by the health department nor applicant in this case. the third one it was held by the board of a pools -- appeals and it remained that way. however the code is very specific in this case. in order for the department to renew or reissue a permit, the applicant must satisfy all the requirements by the agency. i went back and checked the history of this. obviously at the time of permit issuance when the board of appeals process the denial, we issued a permit. there's no
correspondence from miss lewis or the department. she is required under the code. there were no objections or no complaints of it. on march 15, 2013, the applicant came back to us to apply for renewal which was on due date. in her review of her application we found the review was absent and we created a new permit number. we could not issue a new permit until that was satisfied and then we started to receive objections from the neighbors making allegation that the applicant has not been in operation for a period of six 6 months or more. based on these allegation, the department held a public hearing asking miss lewis regarding the renewal of this permit. a hearing was made
on may 29, 2013, to hear both the objections and the allegations that the applicant was not in operation for 6 months or more and also to review the appropriateness of reviewing this permit based on information. it was during this hearing that the department had requested miss lewis to provide documentation that she was in operation during that time. no documentation was provided by the applicant. during that time, the applicant admitted she could not operate because she did not get clearing from the department of public health. the code is allowed to
suspend or revoke a permit. there was a fire mobile food truck, the applicant immediately came back informing us that we suspended the permit knowing that they would have suspended operation and permit revoked. suspended operation until the truck was repaired. in no time again did miss lewis contact the department to inform us of this situation. it was o.j. -- only after that we found out that miss lewis was not in operation by her own admission in this case. the department has no choice but to revoke the permit. there was no attempt to contact to inform us to allow
her time to find whatever accommodations to satisfy her requirement. >> when you say you have no choice, what do you mean by that? >> typically, okay, if you are not going to be in operation, the expectation is you would contact the department for whatever reason. >> okay, she didn't. when you say you had no choice, i'm just wanting to know what your capacity is this. you have no discretion? you did, but you chose not to? and versus revoke. >> right. in this case, okay, a suspension of a permit that is up for renewal really does not in that perspective. >> what do you mean? >> during the time of the permit was approved, if they were not in operation, if they
would have an -- if an applicant would come to us and say i'm not in operation for whatever reason. we would work with the applicant to give them certain time to comply in this case. we find after the fact that the health department based upon what the applicant stated that their sanitation authorization was not correct. and that they may not operate on that. at that point if we knew about that, we would have suspended the permit to give them the opportunity to correct the repairs. so now we can say the permit is correct and appropriate. >> i think i just want to know the answer to this question. when you learned that the
company was not in operation and you learned after the fact, do you still have the ability to suspend it further? correct? >> the challenge again -- >> did you or didn't you, i don't want an explanation. i feel like i'm not getting an answer. >> there is a discretion of suspending a permit or revoking it. >> when i heard that, i want to know what your ability is and what your discretion is. you could have suspended but you chose to revoke because she had not come to you prior to informing you that it was not operable. >> correct. >> eye -- i have a follow up question to that. it seems to me that 6 months in operable,
they abandon the business. they are gone, right? in this situation it seems, at the hearing she testified that they were working on the department of public health prools. -- approvals. it wasn't like she abandoned the whole endeavor. in that situation, wouldn't it make more sense is to give her some time to do that or assist her this doing that rather than deny the permit. i don't understand the exercise of discretion here? >> in this specific case, there is, no. 1 the department wasn't really informed. no. 2, legally, according to the condition of the permit , all
the approvals from the health department and fire department must be in hand for her to continue to operate. already by not having that permit, you have provided a permit that is invalid. yes, the department could have suspended. those are the official requirement for a mobile food facility you must have a corresponding health department permit, sanitation department business license and sanitation permit. >> we've seen this case several times now. it seems it's pretty clear there is a lot of resistance by the restaurants in this area to have this cart there. so under these circumstances and given the difficulty that the appellants been having with getting permission to use bathrooms, etc and she explained that she's tried to do that but
perhaps has run into difficulties because of the resistance in the community, i guess, that's why i don't understand why you would just deny the permit knowing that that's the situation and she actually has realm -- remedied that now, correct? >> from my understanding from what little information we have from the health department, yes. >> okay. did you know that information at the time you decided to deny the permit? >> it was brought up during the hearing in this case. one of the challenges was the department was not even informed of the actions that was taken by the health department until the hearing. >> and in that situation i think that would be in incumbent on the health department to communicate with you, in my view. you did have the information and you decided
to deny that? >> yes. >> the 6-month requirement is quite clear to all permit holders? >> yes, it is. >> it's in the formal agreement, the permit issuance? >> yes, in both in public works code and dpw order in guidelines as well as the permit. >> okay. thank you. >> we can take public comment now. >> good evening commissioners. my name is douglas robbins. i represent the fisherman. wharf
community benefit district. you have our briefs and you have the copy of our briefs down below which contain multiple declarations. what is significant about tonight is not what she said or her attorney said but what her attorney did not say. first it says she actually did operate for the continuous 6 months or longer and there is no evidence in the records below here or tonight that she did not break that rule. that is not in controversy. instead you have ten declaration from ten different witnesses saying they had never seen her operator her operate within the previous 6 months. in fact there is no evidence at any point that she did in fact operate. even miss lewis has said she did not
operate ever except to hand out flyers. that is not operation of a business. to answer your question, this may in fact be evidence of abandonment of the business to the extent to which even miss lewis cannot testify to you tonight and say she ever operated the business. that evidence isn't in the record. second, what i also was going to argue tonight was she has a bathroom permit. there is no evidence in the record that she ever procured a bathroom permit. miss lewis says she did ask the restaurant for a bathroom permit, she signed this agreement, she did not produce this agreement and it's not in the record tonight. in fact we have two separate declaration from the very people she says she got bathrooms from. the pizzeria owner and from the second declaration from the other
business. both of those people both say she never approached them or their -- that bathrooms -- >> where are those? >> they are not exhibits. they are separate declaration as part of the package. both of them say they were never approached and they never signed any bathroom permit agreements. remarkably, the patrons of the pizzeria don't even have a bathroom. they use the anchorage square bathroom. they couldn't give her bathroom
access if they wanted to. it doesn't exist. not only are there not bathroom permits, miss lewis has misrepresented to the dpw and the board that she ever got agreement from these people. this is a mandatory condition to operate an nf. not discretionary. finally she did not argue that she has a permit from sanitation or the fire department. there is no evidence of that. i will take any questions. >> thank you commissioners. >> thank you, any other public comment?
>> good evening everybody, troy campbell, from the benefits district. wcbd. >> they are not a party. >> they are not a party to this appeal. just speaking on the comment. >> i'm sorry, i thought council just represented the fisherman. wharf. >> that's true. this is a public comment. it's the same party but two different people. >> under the boards rules parties have limited amount of time to speak. fisherman. wharf is not a party to this appeal. they can speak if they wish.
>> please go ahead. >> i wanted to show that this is the interior of the water front bakery. this is their espresso machine all roasted here in san francisco owned locally. and this is the, just so you have a visualization of where we are talking about. this is the entrance to the water front bakery. the food cart for sasha would be in this area. i want to say that this swcbd is that we have not objected to food carts that are in violation of the outline by the department of public works. i have helped work with the coalition from boma and the union improvements district in
drafting the revisions to the legislation that is passed by the board of supervisors recently. we followed this policy. this was the first food cart allowed in our district. we wanted to see how it works because part of the job we do is manage the district from everything from mobile food carts to street artist to mobile food vendors, street performers, sidewalk encroachments. we help manage that. in this instance as we learned more through the process we found things were coming up that didn't seem to add up. for instance here is an e-mail, if you go back to the projector, this is from
melodya. this is from glen myers restaurant. as i explained ownership did not authorize the use of these bathrooms at 300 jefferson street. the next e-mail i'm going read is from melodya to myself that was sent in august of last year. she was supposed to meet with my supervisor. she did not show up. my supervisor is out. it doesn't seem like if she knew she had a meeting that this is somebody who was working hard to make this business work. it sounds like she blew off the meeting after finding out that the sanitation permit was revoked. thank you. >> any other public comment?
>> please step forward. leila, fisherman. wharf. i have to say that after she returned from an extended holiday. i actually contacted the department of public health on september 4th. i spoke with mr. robert dem ar, informed me that they were both available to answer questions and also conduct an investigation. but miss reyes never reached out. so that's the first point i wanted to make. the second point is that miss lewis's
counsel argued that her permit was rightfully issued. the issue is she violated the terms thereafter. the evidence she has is that they did in fact violate the terms. at the never received bathroom access and material misrepresentation and they did not get a certificate of approval by the fire marshall. and that is not discretionary. >> seeing no other members of the public for public comment. i will move back to rebuttal and miss dow you have 3 minutes. >> i'm going to say that sasha did operate. she listing gio pinos signing was a mistake. the permission she obtained was
for fisherman's pizza. both of the signed restroom facility forms. >> i would like to see those. >> overhead please. miss lewis operated until she was told to see'scease operating until her restroom was revoked. >> i spent 3 years, a $100,000 for my cart, i have two lawsuit and repeated harassment of my bathroom permit is basically why i'm here today. i don't need the permits anymore. so what they initiated was to start this proceeding to revoke my permit. i just spoke with
melodya and she said that i can record them. she notified them and told them i was working on the permit and i had received approval from the director. i was prevented from setting up because they kept checking on me. they were up to date. the wharf association and when i went in december and november, they were shut down, had half staff or no staff and told me i wasn't in their system. i could not operate. these people were watching me so hard that i dare not to or else i would be revoked. so i just can't even believe what's been going on here. i was never given an opportunity to state why my permit and dph and i were working together because as soon as i started operating, they came back and said that
permit, you are operating on is revoked. i went and worked with dpw, they said i can operate but to wait for melodya, she is on long-term leave. i told stacy and told me that melodya was out. now they are trying, this is all while they are in the background having this telling the wharf association to bring more letters and get more people and get this thing going. they never talked to me once. so what i'm saying and i will make it quick is that i'm an african american. they don't want me there. it's very clear. i have been bullied by them, you have been bullied by them because as soon as you gave me an authorization, they filed a lawsuit. that's why i'm with